F1 Consistency Points Idea

[Com Fox]

A racing driver that doesn't fight for position isn't a racing driver. In my view.

Having said that, NASCAR has always had a broadly similar points system and that doesn't stop drivers fighting for position.

In NASCAR, wins automatically put you into the chase, so your example is not a very good one.

 

[Tired Tyres]

In NASCAR, wins automatically put you into the chase, so your example is not a very good one.

Thats recently. Not through all the years it's been running so my example stands.

 

[Liquid]

Consistency points are what were used in the European Grand Prix Championship before World War Two. They weren't called as such but did score the drivers based on that principle; points were actually penalties and the driver with the fewest points would be the champion.

1st - 1pt
2nd - 2pts
3rd - 3pts
---
>75% race distance - 4pts
50-75% race distance - 5pts
25-50% race distance - 6pts
<25% race distance - 7pts
---
Not entering or DNS - 8pts

Imagine that! Not attending a race after submitting yourself for the championship was an 8 point penalty. Here's the 1937 season as an example.

These points were the reason that there is controversy about the (shortened) 1939 season and that the system wasn't picked up again after the war:

Officially there wasn't a winner this year due to the outbreak of WW2 ending the season prematurely but as it stood, Müller would have been champion on the points system in use. Contrary to this, the NKK (Nazi motoring body) declared Lang the champion under a system of points we would now be familiar with where the driver with the most points wins.

And if you look at it, Müller was indeed more consistent than Lang but Lang had more race victories and that factor was single-handedly what drove us to the points system we have now; that race victories should mean more than simply finishing and banking points consistently.

Obviously a system like this would be unworkable in F1 today due to how reliable the cars are but still, it's a novel idea I've always been fascinated with and it would be interesting to see how the F1 might have been had a system like this been used.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

while the one we have now harms the late game.

No, what harms the "late game" is having an uncompetitive grid. The current points system (or any points system really) doesn't prevent championships going down to the wire, as shown by 2010, 2012 and 2014. To come up with a points system that says "yeah no matter what you do it will probably come down to the last race" is a band-aid solution to the current Mercedes dominance in my opinion.

 

[Com Fox]

No, what harms the "late game" is having an uncompetitive grid. The current points system (or any points system really) doesn't prevent championships going down to the wire, as shown by 2010, 2012 and 2014. To come up with a points system that says "yeah no matter what you do it will probably come down to the last race" is a band-aid solution to the current Mercedes dominance in my opinion.

Actually according to what the new points system would, 2014 season would've lasted to the end with a battle between Hamilton and Rosberg is the points were more squished together, keeping the championship alive.

It's not really to make it all come to the last no matter what you do, as drivers will get taken out of the championship (though much more late), but it is to make it more closer and make sure no one is easily left in the dust, also treat every position fairly and make defending the championship lead much more harder instead of 4 Wins = 1 Lazy Racing Day (in fact due to Hamilton crashing Rosberg actually has another one).

In fact the older system would not let that happen if 2nd stayed consistent.

4 Wins = 40
4 2nds = 32

Even a reach of 1 3rd and 3 2nds instead of 4 2nds, could leave the driver with a chance to tie. Granted the Leader had 2 wins to go before locking in 1st for another race.

Now:
4 Wins = 100
4 2nds = 72

A Win for 2nd would not let you overtake even if the Winner did absolutely 🤬 in the race.

 

[TenEightyOne]

also treat every position fairly and make defending the championship lead much more harder instead of 4 Wins = 1 Lazy Racing Day (in fact due to Hamilton crashing Rosberg actually has another one).

You also seem to forget the Constructors' championship. You have to persuade the teams that such a high-risk points system (a couple of no-fault DNFs and you're nowhere) is worth their investment or, indeed, their effort in the races. I think you won't.

 

[Com Fox]

You also seem to forget the Constructors' championship. You have to persuade the teams that such a high-risk points system (a couple of no-fault DNFs and you're nowhere) is worth their investment or, indeed, their effort in the races. I think you won't.

Due to the gap from 1st to 2nd, constructors is probably worse off.

Mercedes have pretty much been given 2 Racing Weekends to not really focus on the constructors and already used the 1 at Spain and they could get another one later on.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Actually according to what the new points system would, 2014 season would've lasted to the end with a battle between Hamilton and Rosberg is the points were more squished together, keeping the championship alive.

Could you rephrase this, I have no idea what you're trying to say here, sorry.

but it is to make it more closer and make sure no one is easily left in the dust, also treat every position fairly and make defending the championship lead much more harder instead of 4 Wins = 1 Lazy Racing Day (in fact due to Hamilton crashing Rosberg actually has another one).

That's fair enough, but it's important to remember that if you change the system so leading drivers can have less "lazy" days (not sure how Nico was being "lazy" in Spain but ok), this will also reduce the motivation for a driver to get a points lead in the first place. Similarly from the viewer's perspective, making it more likely we'll have an exciting championship finale also makes it less likely the championship is worth following in the preceding races.

Naturally any points system we think of will be a tradeoff between these two things. A consistency system certainly exists at one end of the extreme - but I'm not convinced the current system exists anywhere near the other extreme. And I suspect you aren't really either, given that your only issue with the current system seems to be the relative punishment to 2nd place.

 

[Com Fox]

Could you rephrase this, I have no idea what you're trying to say here, sorry.

In the 2014 Season, if we had the consistency point system, Hamilton and Rosberg's battle would've lasted until the end of the season more closer than with our point system probably even without the double points.

That's fair enough, but it's important to remember that if you change the system so leading drivers can have less "lazy" days (not sure how Nico was being "lazy" in Spain but ok), this will also reduce the motivation for a driver to get a points lead in the first place. Similarly from the viewer's perspective, making it more likely we'll have an exciting championship finale also makes it less likely the championship is worth following in the preceding races.

Like I mentioned before I disagree on this, as I believe it does the opposite effect. Instead of fighting to get the lead, now the battles are for defense, defending your throne while making to get more points than rivals if someone ahead of you slips up.

Naturally any points system we think of will be a tradeoff between these two things. A consistency system certainly exists at one end of the extreme - but I'm not convinced the current system exists anywhere near the other extreme. And I suspect you aren't really either, given that your only issue with the current system seems to be the relative punishment to 2nd place.

Not really, not sure you missed it or not. While I do have a problem with 2nd places punishment, I wasn't really thrilled about the previous point system either (though it was better than the 90's IMO).

 

[mustafur]

Having a point system where it takes 9 victory's to catch up a consistent 2nd place rival if you retire once and they win is rewarding consistency over actual racing.

Why would you risk your championship trying to race for something you know is basically unreachable for your opponent if you hold station, and don't say it won't happen because it's a common scenario when championships are to the wire at the end.

 

[Com Fox]

Having a point system where it takes 9 victory's to catch up a consistent 2nd place rival if you retire once and they win is rewarding consistency over actual racing.

Why would you risk your championship trying to race for something you know is basically unreachable for your opponent if you hold station, and don't say it won't happen because it's a common scenario when championships are to the wire at the end.

If the person was consistent in 2nd place then I say he deserves to lose it that way. Able to pull off 2nds, able to defend his championship. You need to be better than him, and you don't prove that by winning a few races after a few no Podiums, when the other guy has been in the Top 3 every race. If none of the other drivers or teams are good enough to make sure he isn't 2nd then he is a deserving champion IMO. If they were, he might've lost a few positions due to a 5th or a 6th and the person who came 1st would take the most benefits.

If my record was: 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st and somebody record was: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 8th. Who looks like they are a deserving champion? Now there is no right answer as I know people will choose different sides judging by their preference but the way I see it sure I only won 1 race but my 2nd places have to count for something right, and while 4 1sts is great, what about that shocking 8th result, he suffers no punishment.

 

[mustafur]

When you beat someone 9 times to 10, points just don't make sense to be equal. Having a massive penalty on one bad performance compared to the rest where your opposition was worse and got no real penalty for it is not a fair scenario.

In a scenario where you have a dominant team and it's down to the two drivers the winner is the one with the most luck on the reliability front and not the racing front, odd retirements are just a part of a season having 1 race ruin your season is a joke, especially if it's out of your control.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Obviously a system like this would be unworkable in F1 today due to how reliable the cars are but still, it's a novel idea I've always been fascinated with and it would be interesting to see how the F1 might have been had a system like this been used.

It used to be used in rallying, particularly in the Southern Cross Rally. The fastest driver through a stage would get one point, the second-fastest two points, the third three points and so on and so forth. At the end of the event, the points were tallied up, and the crew with the lowest score won. The idea was to reward drivers for their success without giving them the massive advantage of an aggregate time lead, whilst at the same time penalising drivers who made mistakes without making it impossible for them to reclaim lost ground.

 

[Com Fox]

When you beat someone 9 times to 10, points just don't make sense to be equal. Having a massive penalty on one bad performance compared to the rest where your opposition was worse and got no real penalty for it is not a fair scenario.

Coming to 2nd fiddle to 1st 9 times shouldn't be as effective and coming 10th while the rival came 1st.

On Average, the guy who came 2nd 9 times did better since he was able to hold off the other 20 drivers and was the best driver to take advantage on the leader's poor effort in 1 race.

Sure the 9 timer winner held off all 21 rivals but he suffered badly in 1 race and therefore he needs to pay a price especially if the other driver is very skilled to hold off the others.

 

[mustafur]

Coming to 2nd fiddle to 1st 9 times shouldn't be as effective and coming 10th while the rival came 1st.

On Average, the guy who came 2nd 9 times did better since he was able to hold off the other 20 drivers and was the best driver to take advantage on the leader's poor effort in 1 race.

Sure the 9 timer winner held off all 21 rivals but he suffered badly in 1 race and therefore he needs to pay a price especially if the other driver is very skilled to hold off the others.

The driver would have to break the record for most consecutive wins to make up that 1 race.

 

[Com Fox]

The driver would have to break the record for most consecutive wins to make up that 1 race.

If the other guy messes (which does happen as a consistent 2nd is as hard as a consistent 1st) up then the driver can take the opportunity like the other guy did and get a huge boost as he failed to defend the lead. If he doesn't then good for him, he should be hard to reach with that well driving and defending the championship lead.

 

[TenEightyOne]

On Average, the guy who came 2nd 9 times did better since he was able to hold off the other 20 drivers and was the best driver to take advantage on the leader's poor effort in 1 race.

That seems a tremendously naive view. If you genuinely believe that the finishing orders are entirely determined by talent and reliability then... well... you don't believe that, surely?

 

[mustafur]

Can you Imagine how boring the racing would be under this system, drivers would be scared to race if in a high position knowing retirement will almost certainly require an elite performance for a good half of the seasons races to make up for it.

It's a theory based system that easily destroys championships over things that can be out of the drivers control.

 

[Com Fox]

That seems a tremendously naive view. If you genuinely believe that the finishing orders are entirely determined by talent and reliability then... well... you don't believe that, surely?

No I don't but I do think there should be consequences for any driver if they make a bad result even through "racers walk". This applies to on our point system too focused on winning as winners tend to get be victorious too by "racers luck", not just the guys who fail

Key word on average is that I meant mathematically based off positions:

Driver A: 1 + (2x8) = 17 divided by 9 = 1.888888888.... Average
Driver B: (1x8) + 10 = 18 divided by 9 = 2 Average

Driver B won more races but Driver A has shown the best performance on average. It's the question of ig you rather the best average performer or the best winner? Of course if Driver B came 8th instead of 10th then he would be the better driver by average and if he came 9th then it would be a tie.

Some views I've seen for the winners sound like they are taken from other sport scenario's where all there is, is a Winner and a Loser, while there is that in Motorsports, there is the in between depending on how many drivers you actually beat that IMO should be taken more into account.

Can you Imagine how boring the racing would be under this system, drivers would be scared to race if in a high position knowing retirement will almost certainly require an elite performance for a good half of the seasons races to make up for it.

Once again, I disagree on that theory, especially now, I think the only drivers who do driver aggressively consistently like that are Vettel, Hamilton and formerly Maldonado and these drivers would still driver the same even if the point system got shifted. Championship Leader's can't afford to just chill on lower places because if they did, lot of positions will be lost anyway, they have to try to defend their positions.

We get the same problem in later races in F1 where 19 of the 22 drivers don't even before since they are already out of the running so quickly, this system isn't exactly fixing problems that might persist with a consistent point system.

Like I said before, this causes the championship battle to be more performing well to defend where you are instead of performing well to get ahead. It's a rather Head and Tail scenario.

 

[mustafur]

This theory assumes all cars are equal, a Mercedes can come 2nd with next to no effort all season, hardly an impressive beating most of the field moment.

 

[Com Fox]

F1 really isn't just about the driver for a long time. When a driver wins, pretty much everything to do with the drivers race wins including the car.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Can you Imagine how boring the racing would be under this system, drivers would be scared to race if in a high position knowing retirement will almost certainly require an elite performance for a good half of the seasons races to make up for it.

It's a theory based system that easily destroys championships over things that can be out of the drivers control.

No it does not. NASCAR has run with a very similar system for years and years. When has it stopped anybody racing for wins? What does it matter if a dominant driver, invariably in the best car, loses because of a retirement? If it means you can't catch up then you can't catch up. How is that different from your car breaking in the last race handing the championship to another driver! It isn't.

Besides in a system like that every point matters. Under the current system it doesn't because there is no way of catching up.

 

[Samus]

To be honest if you're going to reward consistency I think you still also have to reward performance. You can't keep handing out points to drivers trundling around at the back of the field, having a poor race, just because they finished. Those points may be valuable at the end of the season and you're handing them out like candy.

I mean again, look at the current situation ordered by performance.

1 1 1 1 DNF - Rosberg
4 4 4 4 11 - Ricciardo

Rosberg is consistently better than Ricciardo over four races by three positions, then Rosberg gets nothing for a DNF and Ricciardo gets a haul of points for 11th, leaving them equal.

Haryanto was last in Bahrain, second last in China, last in Spain and retired twice. He has 17 points. Granted that still makes him last but how deserving is he of those points, just for finishing?

 

[mustafur]

No it does not. NASCAR has run with a very similar system for years and years. When has it stopped anybody racing for wins? What does it matter if a dominant driver, invariably in the best car, loses because of a retirement? If it means you can't catch up then you can't catch up. How is that different from your car breaking in the last race handing the championship to another driver! It isn't.

Besides in a system like that every point matters. Under the current system it doesn't because there is no way of catching up.

Using Nascar is a poor example because you have much more cars on track, it's oval racing and small errors tend to cost you huge amount of positions on what a circuit may not even cost you at all, in Nascar getting a top 10 result is Considered good because there is such a number racing and the nature of oval racing makes winning consistently extremely difficult, Comparing it to F1 which has open Aero regulations and often has a select few teama occupy the top positions all year makes the comparison invalid.

 

[FutureF1]

Added a poll. Let me know what changes you'd like to see in the system. If we see a large majority leaning towards one option, I'm more than happy to alter it.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

In the 2014 Season, if we had the consistency point system, Hamilton and Rosberg's battle would've lasted until the end of the season more closer than with our point system probably even without the double points.

2014 did go down to the wire even if you ignore double points.

(Ironically by my calculations 2014 under a consistency system would have produced a less attainable gap, and roles reversed: Nico would be leading Lewis by 9 points going into Abu Dhabi, requiring a win for Lewis and a 10th or lower for Nico to turn it around. The real Abu Dhabi (ignoring double points) would have required a Nico win and Lewis to finish just 7th or lower.)

Like I mentioned before I disagree on this, as I believe it does the opposite effect. Instead of fighting to get the lead, now the battles are for defense, defending your throne while making to get more points than rivals if someone ahead of you slips up.

Again I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If a driver has a lead in the championship that means.......he has to defend a lead? This is true no matter what system you use.

Not really, not sure you missed it or not. While I do have a problem with 2nd places punishment, I wasn't really thrilled about the previous point system either (though it was better than the 90's IMO).

The top-9 points system you suggested earlier in the thread is proportionally very similar to the current system (aside from the 2nd place anomaly), and even more similar to the 2003-2009 system. So yes I think I am missing something, because you've suggested a system similar to two other systems you don't like.

 

[Com Fox]

To be honest if you're going to reward consistency I think you still also have to reward performance. You can't keep handing out points to drivers trundling around at the back of the field, having a poor race, just because they finished. Those points may be valuable at the end of the season and you're handing them out like candy.

I mean again, look at the current situation ordered by performance.

1 1 1 1 DNF - Rosberg
4 4 4 4 11 - Ricciardo

Rosberg is consistently better than Ricciardo over four races by three positions, then Rosberg gets nothing for a DNF and Ricciardo gets a haul of points for 11th, leaving them equal.

Haryanto was last in Bahrain, second last in China, last in Spain and retired twice. He has 17 points. Granted that still makes him last but how deserving is he of those points, just for finishing?

3 Position differences in a row and then an 11 Position differences, that sounds right to be even IMO. Though I wouldn't award any driver who didn't come in the Top 10 with points, as I perfer 10, 9, 8... system or my own.

The top-9 points system you suggested earlier in the thread is proportionally very similar to the current system (aside from the 2nd place anomaly), and even more similar to the 2003-2009 system. So yes I think I am missing something, because you've suggested a system similar to two other systems you don't like.

Not really, as there is no gaps from 2nd to 3rd and awarding an extra point for pole position (decided on that )

If it wasn't for the Bonus Point then I would do 10, 9, 8...

Added a poll. Let me know what changes you'd like to see in the system. If we see a large majority leaning towards one option, I'm more than happy to alter it.

I don't think you should, this thread served as an alternative to the normal F1 Standings changing it would kill a bit of that, especially the 1st getting more points which we already do serve that in F1 now.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Using Nascar is a poor example because you have much more cars on track, it's oval racing and small errors tend to cost you huge amount of positions on what a circuit may not even cost you at all, in Nascar getting a top 10 result is Considered good because there is such a number racing and the nature of oval racing makes winning consistently extremely difficult, Comparing it to F1 which has open Aero regulations and often has a select few teama occupy the top positions all year makes the comparison invalid.

Do they or do they not fight for position? It is motor racing mate. You can't pick and choose. That example was made specifically because it defeats your point of drivers not racing for position if there's only a point in it. It is my contention that they will. They are racing drivers. That is what they do.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Not really, as there is no gaps from 2nd to 3rd and awarding an extra point for pole position (decided on that )

If it wasn't for the Bonus Point then I would do 10, 9, 8...

Then I guess we just have different ideas of what similar/different means; I personally don't see how your changes affect the other systems enough to change anything in the ways you claim it would. In fact the bonus point addition doesn't even necessarily give you your desired change - if it was earned by the winning driver, then the points gap to 2nd would proportionally be larger than both the current or pevious system!

 

[mustafur]

Do they or do they not fight for position? It is motor racing mate. You can't pick and choose. That example was made specifically because it defeats your point of drivers not racing for position if there's only a point in it. It is my contention that they will. They are racing drivers. That is what they do.

The point of racing is to win, when you take the incentive away to win and add a massive punishment for not finishing your just going to get a grid of existence.

I told you how Nascar is soo different from F1 I don't need to explain again, especially when they get points even when they retire unlike the system proposed.